Is a defendant denied due process and equal protection by the trial court's failure to instruct sua sponte on the absence of flight?

Contrary to appellant's contention, he was not denied due process and equal protection by the trial court's failure to instruct sua sponte on the absence of flight. ¹ It was uncontested at trial that appellant did not try to flee when the arresting officer approached him. Indeed, in response to the officer's request, appellant opened the gate to the garage area to let the officer in. Appellant observes that, when there is evidence of a defendant's flight, such evidence may be considered in deciding guilt or innocence and an instruction (see CALJIC No. 2.52) must be given sua sponte, pursuant to Penal Code section 1127c. ² Appellant thus reasons that a sense of balance and reciprocal parity (see, e.g., Wardius v. Oregon (1973) 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (due process requires reciprocal discovery rights for both prosecution and defense)) constitutionally require an instruction on the absence of flight. He is mistaken.